you wrote:
A lot of times organizers have no idea what they want in terms of how the problems should be set. In that case the Chief needs to step up and determine the styles and grades.

i agree, but that has to be another chief as i feel that when the organizers have no idea it is going to be a shitty event. And i don’t want to put my effort (expenses paid at best) into a shitty event…

you also wrote:
Why can’t there by big showy moves and perfect separation?

This is certainly possible and this should always be our goal. But i feel that the more special the moves the more risk it has for being to easy or to difficult. That’s why i want to know beforehand what the organizers (and I) want.

I agree with you in why can’t there be more showy moves and seperation? The problems were not mind blowing and they didn’t make me think, “wow”, how did they come up with that, which I as a setter and as a spectator would liked to have seen……….something out of the box and really entertaining for the audience and fun for the competitors, while at the same time doing the job of seperating everyone as best as possible given how strong and equally talented the competitors are.

Also, other than the So ILL eye there really weren’t any cool holds used for the comp. Seems this would be a perfect venue to use as a showcase.

Honestly, I’m not trying to rip on the comp just making suggestions as I do think this comp was better then last years. This is just my opinion and everyone who sets knows we literally “set” ourselves up for criticism when it comes to our routes or problems.

I did really like they way they positioned the walls. It was easy to see everyone climbing and just the craftsmanship of the walls was excellent.

A lot of times organizers have no idea what they want in terms of how the problems should be set. In that case the Chief needs to step up and determine the styles and grades.

Why can’t there by big showy moves and perfect separation?

Spectator viewing should be the domain of the organizers with input from the Chief.

What is the exact job of a setter? What should he build, should he prevent ties, etc…

To me the answer is:
The job of the setter is: to build what the organizers want. If the organizers don’t know what they want a setter can build something but it will not fit in with the eventt.

It is the organizer that has to choose (set priority) between things like big (spectacular) moves and small sustained moves. Between technical footwork and campus moves. Between good viewing boulders and the risks for ties. Between the spectacle of topping out and the risk for ties. Wether or not you want to determine the winner on # tops or # of attempts for those tops. For a scoring system that is understandable to the public and a scoring system that is “better” at determining the best climber.

Offcourse the setters job is to educate and advise the organizers on all these aspects but to me they should not decide.

And offcourse the setters should be totally free to set the boulders and choose styles, but only within the “guidelines” as indicated by the organisation. And if the setter feels the guidelines are to strict or that they want to give the event a certain aspect that he cannot support the setter should indicate that and ultimately retreat from the setters position.

I’ve seen a lot of comps where the setters and the organisation did not communicate and where the boulders where perfect (for a competition)but did not fit into the event. I’ve seen that in local comps in Netherlands and france, but also in various worldcups.

To illustrate this 3 examples:

From a few years back:
Qualifier for dutch championships had 10 men public but very spectacular boulders with strong emotion and a perfect scoring system and info to the (10 men strong) public.
while:
Dutch championships had a lot of media coverage: 100 men public and TV coverage with very technical and tricky boulders. Boulders that were perfect at determining the winner but showed no emation at all to the public and Potential TV audience. In the end the event was not aired as it was determined to be “not interesting”.

I’ve also seen a worldcup where the audience could clearly see boulders 3,4,5 and 6. but had limited acces to boulders 1 and 2.
the walls af boulders 1 and 2 were similair to 5 and 6.
During the evaluation it became clear that the organisation was not satisfied with the boulders as they wanted a)more tops (in general) with the risk that 1st place was decided on # of attempts and b)more spectacular moves in boulders 3 to 6.
It turned out that none of this was communicated to the setters who did not even know that the audience had only limited acces to boulders 1 (8 out of 8 tops) and 2(6 out of 8 tops). They build the most spectacular and the easiest boulders on number 1 and 2. And decided that they wanted to decide on # of tops. the result being: problem 3 was send by 1 person, problem 5 by 2 persons and problems 4 and 6 were not send.